Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 3, 2012 4:00pm-4:30pm PDT

4:00 pm
>> yeah. i guess. and it is the first monday after thanksgiving. so, if people are on travel and everything else, you might want to remember that, too. >> meaning what? >> remembering that we have a long meeting. >> what we are going to do our best to do and i think that we be able to do is have packets ready, the week before thanksgiving, so that you will have them during the rush of the holidays, you will have extra time. >> the monday before? >> hopefully the week before. >> even the week before that? i see. i see what you are saying, that would be great >> right. and i had trouble trying to schedule a december meeting because our normal meeting date would be the 24th, the night of the 24th. so i am going to... i am going
4:01 pm
to give that one more go around but we may not be able to have a december meeting. >> the final thing is one of the requests for the future meetings at past meetings was that we do a discussion of the report that the budget analyst harvey rose did comparing us to la. we have decided that before we have that discussion, here at the commission, that we should have interested persons meetings with the public. and get some input from them. so we schedule two of them for december. and then we planned to bring that report before you for the january meeting. >> that is a good idea. >> to answer your question, going back to the scheduling. >> sure. >> so for december, we don't... there is nothing on tentatively schedule for the 14th, december 14th? >> no. >> there is not. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. anything public comment?
4:02 pm
>> on the executive director's report. >> thank you, dr. kerr again. this chart on the first page of the director's report, that has 6 categories of investigations and enforcements, mr. st. croix introduced that chart in 2006, but the first month that this chart was introduced that was whistle blower/sunshine ordinance. since then, in the last six years, the word whistle blower has not appeared. now whistle blower retaliation is arguably a more serious problem than any of these because it involves the destruction of someone's professional life and personal life, too. and it is part of your responsibility to over see whistle blower protection.
4:03 pm
so i would suggest and plead that whistle blower retaliation be one of the categories so that you know how many complaints come in, and you can track whether any of them gets substan ated. thank you. >> commissioners, ray heart, director of san francisco open government. i do read these reports. i read every one of them, front to back and i go back and make notes on them and everything else because i really do want to come here and make meaningful comment. for example, category number two investigation enforcement programs number of complaints what does that tell us? how long have those complaints been sitting? i know for a fact that the 9 for the sunshine ordinance task force have been sitting there for god knows how long. so basically, i could have to... i don't think that it is unfair to assume that some of these other complaints may just be sitting in someone's desk
4:04 pm
aging and eventually someone will get around to it and someone will put it up. these really are meanless statistics. and nine people filed a complaint, and how many were referred from sunshine? how many of you heard, well, we know that. one. gomez, where did that go? nowhere. because the mayor only wants to use you if it suits his political ends. i told you that before. he hung you out to dry, he wanted to get rid of the sheriff. i personally think that he wanted to take control of the sheriff's office. get rid of the sheriff put his own person in and say look at how wonderful it runs under the mayor's office. why have an elected sheriff? the bottom line was, it didn't work. these sunshine complaints, i voted in the very first election in san francisco in
4:05 pm
1999 and they happened to be the latest iteration of the sunshine ordinance. andvy gone back and done the research and seen that you have not taken a single complaint for a hearing except the jewe l gomez and i think that the only reason that you did that was because the civil grand jury pointed it out in their report and you wanted to be able to say no, that is not true, we heard one. you know, it is really auful, and you can be as dismissive as possible, and it is really auful to sit in board and commission meetings and watch citizens denied their right to speak, being told that they are not allowed to speak about certain things. and then, they have to go to the sunshine ordinance task force and fight for those rights under the sunshine ordinance. then to get enforcement, they have to have it referred to you and you simply allow mr. st.
4:06 pm
croix to dismiss them all. and you wonder why i am a little ticked. i have four things on the 150 word summaries that i mentioned before that have all been approved by the sunshine ordinance task force, and mr. st. croix spent 134 pages dismissing against you so that you would not have the guts to hear it. >> the discuss on items for future meetings? >> on the executive director's report, the list of the whistle blower complaints, is this something that we used to have that and we have taken it off? >> it goes into the confidential report, don't we? >> we do.
4:07 pm
>> we get those in the confidential listing. >> i will see what we can add back on again. >> okay. >> public comment on number 8? >> could i ask you to repeat what you said about the whistle blower complaints? >> will they be in or not? >> mr. st. croix said that he will look into what additional information we could put on there relating to the whistle blower complaints. >> is is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> i did want to make a comment on eight. >> you did? >> okay. >> yes. >> ray heart, director of san francisco open government and you can sit there and attribute every negative and other motives that you want to me. i don't care. very frankly i have told you and every other body that i have appeared to before that my
4:08 pm
only two reasons to going to public meetings are to make sure that the nems members of the public are allowed to speak and allowed to gain access to public records that they need to speak intelligently to certain issues. i went to an arts commission meeting where i watched a commissioner respond to a public comment which was polite suggesting that they needed to have sunshine, with comments like mr. whoever you are i don't appreciate be lectured by someone like you. and i am going to do everything in my power to make sure that you are no longer part of this any more. and it gets to the point where people who take a vow to support and defend the constitution start to abuse members of the public. i know that it has gone too far. and i know that you don't like the comments. basically what i found on a lot of these city commissions they
4:09 pm
want to take credit for everything that goes well and avoid responsibility for anything that isn't going well. they want credit for showing up. but they don't want to be bothered with a lot of the work. and we had one member of the commission when there was an argument going on tell one of the witnesses, when they were referred to one of the documents that have been submitted to them and they said, well i don't need to read the documents. and it is time and time again and the reason that i do this is for one simple reason. there are a lot of people who getting up in front of a public body especially on public television, are afraid to do it. they are just afraid to come up to a body and say, you know, i don't like what you are doing and that is just another part of the first amendment to petition government to readdress the grievances. when i started coming here, i tried to be polite, but when
4:10 pm
you are polite with you folks it gets you nowhere, you get someone who said that well, we follow the law if we have to and you say, well here is what the law says and the person sits there and looks down. read the 150 word summary thing in the minutes, it is pretty clear. and i would like to ask you something if we ended up in court and i subpoenaed all of you, and before a jury, or a lawyer got up and said, what did that 150 word summary should be in the minutes mean to you? and does it make any sense that the city attorney said that you could put it somewhere else? i think that you would have a hard time answering that question, wouldn't you? >> a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> i would like... >> so moved. >> second. >> second >> all in favor?
4:11 pm
>> aye. >> aye. >> opposed, hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.
4:12 pm
4:13 pm
4:14 pm
4:15 pm
4:16 pm
4:17 pm
4:18 pm
4:19 pm
4:20 pm
4:21 pm
4:22 pm
4:23 pm
4:24 pm
4:25 pm
4:26 pm
4:27 pm
4:28 pm
4:29 pm

26 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on